Archives

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Use of funds projections for Measures E, M & D

Submitted by Jim Young:

The Projected Affects of WeCCUSD Actual Project Management
and Policies on Bond Funded School Rehabilitation

IF THE WeCCUSD CONTINUES SPENDING MEASURE M & D FUNDS THE WAY IT HAS ACTUALLY
SPEND MEASURE E FUNDS, (@ 225% OF VOTER PROMISE) AND SETS-ASIDE 23% FOR “PROGRAMS”
AS IT HAS DONE WITH MEASURE M, 100%+ OF MEASURE D FUND WILL BE NEEDD TO COMPLETE
THE REHAB PROMISED IN MEASURES E & M.

Is this a “worst case” scenario?

No, this is what will happen to West County Tax Dollars if the WeCCUSD continues
the same management practices they have used on Measure E construction of the
Richmond Middle School and the “Program” set aside they have announced for Measure
M funds. How much school rehab will actually be done is difficult to project,
but the extrapolation of accomplishments to date could result in as little as
30 cents in rehab for every tax dollar “spent”.

The WeCCUSD has solicited the support of local City Councils with the pitch
that, “…your schools will be rehabbed”. If the district does not substantially
improve its actual performance on Measure M compared to Measure E, there will
be less than $200,000,000 in actual rehab value bought with $490,000,000. With
over $500,000,000 in identified rehab need, whose schools won’t get fixed, Hercules,
Pinole, El Cerrito, San Pablo, unincorporated county? In addition, the school
district tax increment will be substantially used so that there will be little
future opportunity to correct the waste until existing bonds are repaid. Is
this the future you want for your city?

Wouldn’t it be better to see how the WeCCUSD actually uses Measure M funds
before another $300,000,000 in educational tax increment is given to the same
people who spent 225% of Measure E “promise” on the Richmond Middle School without
a second thought?

IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT LOCAL CITIES SUPPORTING MEASURE D RECONSIDER
THEIR STAND, UNLESS THEY CAN DEFEND <50¢
IN BENEFIT FOR EACH LOCAL TAX DOLLAR SPENT ON LOCAL SCHOOLS. HOW LONG WOULD
YOU BE ELECTED TO CITY OFFICE WITH A COMPARABLE RATE OF RETURN?

DO THE MATH

Conclusions From the Review of the WeCCUSD Actual Use of
Bond Proceeds.

As time passed from the date of a Bond approval election, the amount of
bond funded benefit drops dramatically from what was promised to the electorate.

The School board can do whatever it wants with bond proceeds, ie. The RMS
project budget increasing from $16MM to $36MM.

The WeCCUSD has not been accurate or truthful about the use of bond proceeds
or school board authority over bond proceeds allocation.

At least $20MM* of Measure E rehab (50% of Measure E) will be funded with
Measure M funds.

Because of actual over spending, unfounded projects must either be abandoned
or carried forward to Measure M & D funding.

The WeCCUSD has not been truthful about the actual use of Measure M funds
which have been used for “studies and administration” (amount unknown) as
well as a $35MM “program” set aside which was not disclosed to the voters.

If the WeCCUSD continues “project” over spending at 225%, like the RMS,
and, if the 23.3% Measure M “program” set asides extended to Measure D, the
net rehab value funded with $490MM in bond funded taxes will be less than
$150MM., about 30¢ for each tax dollar “spent”.

If the $300MM Measure D is added to the existing $190MM school tax, the
established West County tax increment for education will be substantially
wasted. precluding additional bond funded rehab for decades to come.

Are you sure your schools are really going to be fixed?

Is $300MM in new school bonds a good idea when the WeCCUSD hasn’t done any
rehab with $150MM in 18 months?

* * * * *

(Stated In Millions of $$)

November 1998 Measure E

November 2000 Measure M

March 5, 2002 Measure D

Bond Issue Amount

40

150

300

WeCCUSD description

RMS*/Elementary Rehab

16/24

“Projects”/”Programs” Elementary Schs

115/35

No Specific Description Secondary Schs

??/??

Proposed Net Rehab

40

115

??

Budgeted Costs January 2002

36*/4

0/??

??

% of Election Quoted Costs

225%*/16.6%

76.6%/Undescribed

??

Promised Unfunded Rehab

20

35

??

Measure E Affects on Measure M

Promised Bond Proceeds

150

Measure M “Program” Setaside

(35)

Net Rehab From Bond Proceeds

115

Minus Unfounded Measure E Rehab x

225% RMS overspending con’t.

(20) x 2.25 = 45

Net After Funding Promised “E” Rehab

50

Net Rehab Funded Assuming

Continuation of RMS 225%

Overspending

50/2.25 = 22.22

Promised Unfunded Measure M Rehab

150-22.2 = 127.8

Measure E & M Affects on Measure D

Promised Bond Proceeds

300

23.3% “M” “Program” Setaside Con’t.

(69.9)

Net After “Program” Setaside

230.1

Cumulative E & M Unfounded Rehab,

$127.8, times RMS 225% Overspending

287.55

Net Rehab Funded With Measure D

(57.55)

*Richmond Middle School is reported by WeCCUSD to use $23.9MM in Measure E
bond proceeds with the remaining $12.9MM to be contributed by the State from
marching funds. The problem is that there are no state matching funds and if
funds become available from future State bond issues, there is serious political
in fighting for the allocation of those funds to other power school district
political subdivisions (LAUSD, SDUSD, SJUSD, etc.). The writer believes the
WeCCUSD will perform poorly in this intense funding environment, the net effect
being that local bond funds will have to pay the bills.